Content
63%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body delivers a well-sequenced, actionable novelty-verification workflow anchored by a strong calibration block and report template. It is dragged down by duplicated framing, a dense reviewer-routing preamble that restates the Constants section, and external references that do not resolve within the bundle.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the "two failures" framing (keep it once, in the verdict limits or Important Rules) and compress the reviewer-routing preamble to a single line pointing at the shared reference, since the Constants section already carries the model/backend defaults.
Move the 25-line NOVELTY VERDICT LIMITS block into a reference file (linked once) so SKILL.md stays a lean overview, and replace the hard-coded "2024-2026" year filter with a relative window like "the most recent 2 years".
Ensure the referenced files (reviewer-backends.md, review-tracing.md) ship inside the skill bundle (e.g., references/), or inline the minimal routing/tracing contract needed to execute the skill standalone.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The reviewer-routing blockquote ("resolve invocation → `.aris/reviewer.json` → Codex default...") is jargon-heavy and overlaps the Constants section, "Two failures waste months equally" is duplicated between the verdict block and Important Rules, and time-sensitive "Include year filters for 2024-2026" dates the content; the core phases and template are efficient but the body could be noticeably tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete directives throughout ("Try at least 3 different query formulations per claim", "WebFetch its abstract and related work section", "reasoning_effort: xhigh") plus a verbatim verdict block and a copy-paste markdown report template, though no literal example search queries or concrete fallback commands are given. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear Phase A→D sequence (extract claims → multi-source search → fresh-agent verification → structured report) with the reviewer call acting as a validation checkpoint, but no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop beyond the Oracle fallback note. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are clearly signaled but point to `../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md` and `../shared-references/review-tracing.md`, neither present in the skill bundle, and the 25-line verdict-limits block and routing boilerplate are inline content that belongs in separate files. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |